Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3650/1997 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3650 of 1997
=========================================================
RAJESH
G PURABIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RC PATHAK for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RA RINDANI, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 08/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
When
this matter came up for hearing on 15th January 2009,
this Court has passed the following order :
This
Court on 21st August, 2007 had passed the following order
:-
Shri.
Parmar for Shri. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
makes a request for appointment so as to enable him to indicate the
following:-
The
Recruitment Rules for the post of size for which he claims that the
petitioner was appointed on regular basis.
Qualification
criteria and the material indicating that the petitioner was
appointed in accordance with the provisions of law to the post of
size.
Stand
over to 3/9/2007.
Again
on 3rd September, 2007, the Court had passed the following
order :-
Even
after three calls, none present for the petitioner. This court has
therefore no other option but to dismiss this matter. Matter is
dismissed for default.
Before
the aforesaid order could be signed, learned advocate appearing for
the petitioner makes a request to recall the same and adjourn the
matter. Request as sought for is granted. The aforesaid order is
recalled and the matter is adjourned to 07.09.07.
Thereafter,
the matter was adjourned from time to time on the ground of
non-production of relevant recruitment rules. Heard Mr. Parmar,
learned advocate for Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
He requests for time to comply with the earlier orders. Hence, S.O.
to 6th February, 2009.
Today
when the matter was called out, the learned
advocate for the petitioner
was not present. Hence, the petition is required to be dismissed for
non-compliance of the earlier orders passed by this Court and the
same is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as
to costs. The interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top